Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, East Asia and the Pacific, Volume XII, Part 1

Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 432

United States Minutes of Meeting of the Manila Pact Working Group¹

confidential

[Washington,] December 16, 1954—2:30 p.m.

Participants:

• US
• FE—Mr. Sebald
• Defense—Mr. Sullivan
• C—Mr. Galloway
• BNA—Mr. Horsey
• PSA—Mr. Bell
• SOA—Mr. Thacher
• Australia—Sir Percy Spender; Mr. F. J. Blakeney
• France—M. Pierre Millet
• New Zealand—Mr. G. R. Laking
• Pakistan—Amb. Syed Amjad Ali
• Philippines—Minister S. P. Lopez
• Thailand—Amb. Sarasin
• United Kingdom—Sir Robert Scott

[Here follows discussion of several procedural matters, during which February 23, 1955 was confirmed as the date of the next meeting of Foreign Ministers.]

Discussion of Council Procedures Paper

At Mr. Sebald’s request Mr. Galloway explained the changes reflected in the new draft paper on Council procedures (MP(IWG)D–1b).² During the discussion of this paper considerable disagreement was expressed on the role of the liaison secretariat. Messrs. Sebald and Galloway explained that the U.S. envisaged a small contributed secretariat with no independent authority to provide primarily clerical services for the liaison representatives. The Philippine and Pakistan representatives stated that their Governments had reservations about the specific wording concerning a secretariat in (MP(IWG)D–1b). Sir Percy Spender commented that the paper’s wording was sufficiently flexible and that a modest secretariat was all that could be expected at the beginning. However, he said if progress were to be made under the Manila Pact the secretariat would have to become an increasingly effective coordinating center. Several other representatives supported this view stressing that ultimately the secretariat should be able to collate information, undertake studies and even initiate projects. Mr. Sebald replied that the Working Group members were neglecting the liaison representatives who would provide a flexible coordinating center. However, he believed it pointless to argue in advance about the role of the secretariat and pointed out that draft wording on this matter left a great deal of flexibility. Most representatives agreed and at the conclusion of this discussion the Working Group tentatively adopted MP(IWG)D–1b with the proviso that all papers would be finally reviewed and coordinated before being recommended to the Ministers.

Discussion of Military Advisers Paper

In response to a series of questions on the Military Advisers Paper, MP(IWG)D–2,³ Mr. Sullivan explained the U.S.: 1) assumed that the Military Advisers would be high level officers reporting to high level military authorities (for the U.S. it would be Admiral Stump⁴ reporting to the Joint Chiefs of Staff); 2) believed the Military Advisers could meet anywhere in treaty area; 3) assumed that military liaison representatives would meet in the same treaty area capitals as the Council liaison representatives; and 4) agreed that specific terms of reference worked out by the Military Advisers would be referred back for approval by the Manila Council. Mr. Sullivan made the latter point in reply to Sir Robert’s statement that the U.K. accepted the U.S. draft on the assumption the Ministers would reconsider any problems encountered by the Military Advisers in working out their specific procedures and functions.

M. Millet said that France without raising objection to paragraph 3 of the paper questioned the advisability of the Working Groups trying to set out explicit functions of the Military Advisers without Ministerial agreement on the general orientation of the Manila treaty. Sir Percy and others agreed that the Ministers would have to make final decisions on the functions of the Military Advisers but stated that the Working Group had been constituted to explore such issues and to make recommendations which could be accepted, revised or rejected.

Next Working Group Meeting

Mr. Sebald adjourned the Working Group until 2:30 P.M., December 28, Room 5106, New State, at which time he suggested discussion continued on the Military Advisers Paper.

1. Drafted on Dec. 20 by Gleysteen who is not listed among the participants.
2. Not found in Department of State files.
3. Not found as designated in Department of State files. The editors are unable to determine with certainty that MP(IWG)D–2 is identical to the verbatim text contained in circular telegram 288, Dec. 6, p. 1031. They note, however, that “D–2” would normally denote an initial paper, not a revision.
4. Adm. Felix B. Stump, Commander in Chief, Pacific, and U.S. Pacific Fleet.